Download - Level of Service F for Grade A Streets

1

Level of Service F for

Grade A Streets Massachusetts’ Project Selection Advisory Council

September 9, 2014

Scott Hamwey, Manager of Long Range Planning

MassDOT

September 9, 2014 | Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot

2

Created in 2009

Consolidation of several independent

authorities/departments resulted in a statewide

multimodal DOT including:

Roads, bridges and tunnels (tolled/untolled)

Mass transit (commuter rail, subway, buses, ferries,

paratransit)

Bicycle/shared used paths

Intercity Rail

Registry of Motor Vehicles


2 MassDOT: Background

3

GreenDOT a comprehensive implementation plan outlining

MassDOT’s approach to reducing

transportation-related GHG emissions

Healthy Transportation Directive a policy requiring all MassDOT project designs to accommodate

all system users (or secure a waiver from the Secretary)

Mode Shift a goal to triple the share of travel conducted

by transit/bike/ped by 2030


3 MassDOT: Key Goals and Policies

4

Purpose - Created by the Massachusetts Legislature

to recommend :

A set of uniform project selection criteria

A project prioritization formula to be used in

development of statewide transportation plan

Membership - 8 seats filled by (3) gubernatorial and

(4) legislative leadership appointments (plus

Secretary)

Deadline - 12/31/14


Project Selection Advisory Council

5


Massachusetts Experience with

Project Prioritization

MassDOT Project Review Committee – scores

projects as they are submitted by municipalities to

enter the pipeline

MBTA – used third party software and facilitation to

develop scoring system

MPOs – comprehensiveness and use varies by MPO;

typically applied only to roadway projects

weMove – scenario planning tool

Statewide, multimodal set of evaluation

criteria are entering uncharted territory

6

Applicable across modes and project types

Simple and transparent (quantitative metrics

where possible)

Consider regional equity and cost

Focus on existing data; but identify

aspirational data and metrics


PSA Council Goals

7

Challenges to Aligning Criteria with

MassDOT Goals

Addressing existing auto-dependency and realistic

potential for mode shift given existing land use

Overcoming sub-par bicycle, pedestrian, and safety

data and forecasting abilities

Comparing projects across and within

modes with one set of criteria

Avoiding metrics becoming a box to

check

Recognizing political context


8

Specific Challenges for Bike/Ped with

Proposed Objectives

It is tempting to reward projects with

bike/ped elements for both real and

imagined (or at least distant) outcomes

Mode Shift: How closely should the metric align with

this goal? How meaningful is the metric if it doesn’t?

Reliability: Unlike transit, harder to improve upon the

reliability/predictability of travel via biking/walking

Safety: What if the near-term consequence of

encouraging shift to a “safer” mode is more

injuries/deaths?


9

Other Proposed Objectives and

Considerations

Increase persons per hour capacity

Reduce GHG emissions

Increase physical activity

Support sustainable development

Reduce exposure to noise/air/water pollution


10 September 9, 2014 | Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot

What do you think?

How do you prioritize all projects against

the same goals? – Some roads need to

be auto focused.

If we were to get a 6 month extension –

what other approach should we

consider?